¹ tn The word “expensive” is not in the Greek text but has been included to suggest a connection to the lengthy phrase “costly aromatic oil from pure nard” occurring earlier in v. 3. The author of Mark shortened this long phrase to just one word in Greek when repeated here, and the phrase “expensive ointment” used in the translation is intended as an abbreviated paraphrase.

² sn The warning that the owner would give the vineyard to others suggests that the care of the promise and the nation’s hope would be passed to others. This eventually looks to Gentile inclusion; see Eph 2:11-22.

³ sn The issue of whether Jesus had brothers (siblings) has had a long history in the church. Epiphanius, in the 4th century, argued that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no offspring other than Jesus. Others argued that these brothers were really cousins. Nothing in the text suggests any of this. See also John 7:3.

¹ sn The three conditional statements in vv. 24-26 express the logical result of the assumption that Jesus heals by Satan’s power, expressed by the religious leaders. The point is clear: If the leaders are correct, then Satan’s kingdom will not stand, so the suggestion makes no sense. Satan would not seek to heal.

¹ sn Jesus made clear that his coming could not be timed, and suggested it would take some time—so long, in fact, that some will not be looking for him any longer (at an hour when you do not expect him).

¹ tn Grk “Behold, I have prepared my meal.” In some contexts, however, to translate ἄριστον (ariston) as “meal” or “dinner” somewhat misses the point. L&N 23.22 here suggests, “See now, the feast I have prepared (for you is ready).”

³ sn The issue of whether Jesus had brothers (siblings) has had a long history in the church. Epiphanius, in the 4th century, argued that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no offspring other than Jesus. Others argued that these brothers were really cousins. Nothing in the text suggests any of this. See also John 7:3.

¹ tn This first class condition, the first of three “if” clauses in the following verses, presents the example vividly as if it were so. In fact, all three conditions in these verses are first class. The examples are made totally parallel. The expected answer is that Satan’s kingdom will not stand, so the suggestion makes no sense. Satan would not seek to heal.

³ sn Neither were the detractors happy with Jesus (the Son of Man), even though he represented the opposite of John’s asceticism and associated freely with people like tax collectors and sinners in celebratory settings where the banquet imagery suggested the coming kingdom of God. Either way, God’s messengers were subject to complaint.

² sn The reference to soft clothing suggests that John was not rich or powerful, nor did he come from the wealthy or ruling classes. The crowds came out into the wilderness not to see the rich and famous, but to see a prophet.

² sn This imagery of wolves is found in intertestamental Judaism (see Pss. Sol. 8:23, 30; also 1 Enoch 89:55). For more on the sheep imagery see H. Preisker and S. Schulz, TDNT 6:690. The imagery of sheep surrounded by wolves suggests violence, and prepares the hearers for the persecutions of disciples described in vv. 17-26.

² sn Unlike the portrayal of the demoniac in the parallel passage in Mark 5:5-6 which evokes some pity for the afflicted man, Matthew’s account merely suggests the demoniacs were a public nuisance: they were extremely violent and rendered the road impassable.

² sn Though the nature of the serving is not specified, context suggests these would be the typical duties associated with domestic hospitality. The woman’s restoration from her illness is so complete that these activities can be resumed right away, a point emphasized in the parallel account in Luke 4:39.

¹ tn Traditionally, “lilies.” According to L&N 3.32, “Though traditionally κρίνον has been regarded as a type of lily, scholars have suggested several other possible types of flowers, including an anemone, a poppy, a gladiolus, and a rather inconspicuous type of daisy.” In view of the uncertainty, the more generic “flowers” has been used in the translation.

¹ sn Though the statement “I hate divorce” may (and should) be understood as a comprehensive biblical principle, the immediate context suggests that the divorce in view is that of one Jewish person by another in order to undertake subsequent marriages. The injunction here by no means contradicts Ezra’s commands to Jewish men to divorce their heathen wives (Ezra 9-10).

¹ tn The Hebrew phrase בִּירוּשָׁלָם (birushalam) with the verb נִלְחַם (nilkham, “make war”) would ordinarily suggest that Judah is fighting against Jerusalem (so NAB, CEV). While this could happen accidentally, the context here favors the idea that Judah is fighting alongside Jerusalem against a common enemy. The preposition ב (b), then, should be construed as locative (“at”; cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).

¹ tc Heb “I will strengthen them in the Lord.” Because of the perceived problem of the Lord saying he will strengthen the people “in the Lord,” both BHK and BHS suggest emending גִּבַּרְתִּים (gibbartim, “I will strengthen them”) to גְּבֻרָתָם (gevuratam, “their strength”). This is unnecessary, however, for the Lord frequently refers to himself in that manner (see Zech 2:11).

² tn Though a hapax legomenon, the מִצָּבָה (mitsavah) of the MT (from נָצַב, natsav, “take a stand”) is preferable to the suggestion מַצֵּבָה (matsevah, “pillar”) or even מִצָּבָא (mitsavaʾ, “from” or “against the army”). The context favors the idea of the Lord as a protector.

¹ tn The Hebrew word חַיִל (khayil, “strength, wealth”) can, with certain suffixes, look exactly like חֵל (khel, “fortress, rampart”). The chiastic pattern here suggests that not Tyre’s riches but her defenses will be cast into the sea. Thus the present translation renders the term “fortifications” (so also NLT) rather than “wealth” (NASB, NRSV, TEV) or “power” (NAB, NIV).

² tn The Hebrew term הַשָּׂטָן (hassatan, “the satan”) suggests not so much a personal name (as in almost all English translations) but an epithet, namely, “the adversary.” This evil being is also described this way in Job 1 and 2 and possibly 1 Chr 21:1.